Read the example:
Here's the direct quote that proves it. Are you going to try to lie your way out that too?? Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States ... As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [n11] From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth.
I have not disputed that this case involves Virginia Minor's citizenship (although it is primarily about whether she can vote). Nor will I dispute it discusses naturalization. And this quote proves what about natural born? Nothing. So you can cry "liar" all you want, but it's false - I don’t need to lie (not that I would anyway) because I’m telling you what the current law is, and what it’s based on. Not what I wish it were. Not what I want it to be. But what actually is, instead of some tinfoil hat theory that has been and will be kicked out of or ruled against by every court.
Are you this dense in real life?? I already addressed this point. It's why I said the Supreme Court declared that NBC is defined OUTSIDE of the Constitution.
Ah, more Ad Hominem attacks – sure sign of a weak argument.
Your other points fail because you incorrectly ignore that NBC is NOT the same thing as jus soli. .
Wrong. As the :RvB opinion said, the US follows the “English concepts” and accepts Jus soli. Are you honest enough to admit the English concept? Born on the soil (usual diplomatic and military exceptions) means natural born subject. And as WKA quoted, that had not been changed by statute (and still hasn’t) so it still applies here as natural born citizen.
You're not being honest. Viriginia Minor argued her citizenship was NOT based on having citizen parents. Read the argument, or are you going to try to lie about this too??? We need to rack up the number of lies you've come up with in denying the facts:
More insults rather than reasoned arguments. Are you maintaining that the court was ruling on “natural born” rather than Virginia Minor’s right to vote? She was definitely a citizen, but I don’t see the court ruling on who doesn’t qualify as natural born.
“The court was UNANIMOUS on this definition in Minor. You're trying to connect dots that were NEVER connected by the court. Never.” So, "back at you buddy" where do you see ANYTHING about parents in the argument as presented to the court?? Why did the court NOT accept this argument and why did they say ANYTHING about citizen parents OTHER than how it is used to define NBC??? :
I repeat. The Court was not ruling on natural born. They were ruling on her right to vote. The quote you love so much specified her situation and said it was not going to resolve doubts on other situations. And do try to lose the insults – they don’t help your case. You want it to be true, so you argue tinfoil hat theories. All you do is make a laughingstock out of anyone associated with this.
Yes, there's a big difference between these oversimplified examples and the construction of the sentence in WKA. That aside, what YOU are not acknowledging is that the "thoughts" of the editors and readers do not change the reality of the action suggested in the rest of the example sentences. Edge did NOT butcher the quote. What the readers and editors thought does NOT change this fact. The quote was NOT butchered. The WKA action is likewsie measurable. The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision that excluded the children born in the country of citizens and aliens from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. What Justices Miller and others understood when they decided Slaughterhouse does NOT change the fact that the Minor decision, which they voted for, was unanimous and that it EXCLUDED those persons. The fact that it was a UNANIMOUS decision is why Justice Gray says the court was committed to the view. The understanding of Miller and others does NOT change the commitment. He's only saying they didn't understand it two years earlier because they were considering the subject clause not the birth clause in Slaughterhouse. Your examples prove MY point. Thanks.
I have not disputed that this case involves Virginia Minor's citizenship (although it is primarily about whether she can vote).
Let's assume it was about the right to run for president. What impact would this decision have?? Answering that question honestly destroys your beliefs.